|
Post by ben on Jul 8, 2017 1:41:43 GMT
Well, having seen what theyve done its worth the wait! A lot of information, maps and figures. The principal of trying to make links more direct where they involve an CR station seems to be logical.
To all those talking about the 427 stopping where it does in Southall, its mentioned the possibility exists to further project to Havelock Estate via a Middlesex Business Park, whenever that development occurs. One complaint I've read before is that the 607 has had too many stops since a reorganisation a decade or so ago - in this scenario thats probably a good thing. The next step is to advertise the express routes as links on London connexions maps, in much the same way as airport coach services were once.
It is a pity that the X140 cant extend just one stop further to Harrow & Wealdstone station, but thats a minor point.
Atm, between them the 223 and H17 form a circle. Perhaps combining them and restructuring into H16 clockwise and H17 anti would allow stand space to be moved elsewhere along the route, alleviating Harrow Bus station.
I think theres the potential for untapped demand along Long Lane, so the 278 is a winner in my book. Every 12 minutes though? Probably not necessary where it duplicates the U1 but I'm not complaining. Stand space at Ruislip station is getting challenging though. Theres a lack of 'etiquette' in how much space busses take up when they stand.
Great news for the H32 taking in the new development in Southhall and Hayes Pump lane, will hopefully be quite popular.
All very interesting, one wonders how long such a plan has been worked on.
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Jul 8, 2017 4:49:49 GMT
I wonder what Arriva will order for the 218?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 8, 2017 5:36:45 GMT
Another one I have just noticed is that the very long extension to the 112 actually appears from the map to serve Harlequin Avenue in the Brentford trading estate, then run past Sky HQ to Tesco rather than serve Syon Lane. But something is wrong with the map as some of the routes shown are one way and there doesn't appear to be a route for reverse direction. There must be a deal with Sky as it appears to be routed through the Sky complex on their estate routes which are gated and not open to the public.
The Chiswick changes to the 440 must end in a one way anti clockwise loop at Power Road (although not marked as one way on the map) as can't turn right from North Circular. I think there is already a bus stop in Oxford Road North, but can't remember what used to serve it
Slightly frustrates me when basic mistakes like this are made, these days don't even need to leave office as could use google streetview. It feels like the maps have been put together by someone on work experience (or for us not so young, a YTS scheme), and then never checked.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jul 8, 2017 5:40:52 GMT
I am really surprised that no one has mentioned the obvious lack of stand space in Ruislip! Maybe the forecourt gets a revamp to fit in new route 278? Really love the 278 idea, and it looks like the links it will provide would be attractive to passengers. Not surprised that Long Lane hasn't had a proper route serve it at least so that's a cracking start! Make it 24/7 like others have said; sometimes the shortest but most direct routes that work out best (routes 264 & 238 are prime examples). Not much to chime in seeing as it's not mah endz* bruv but would've been sensible to send route 306 to Acton High Street stand where the 70 used to stand, or give it some meat in its bones and cause some duplication over route 266 and extend the 306 to North Acton. Route 427, I mourn thee. Let's see how long TfL will take to mop their doo doo after they massacre capacity along the Uxbridge Road corridor. Route 391 was a nifty cross-Hammersmith link, now that's gone those passengers won't simply disappear! When you see heavy changes like that proposed to the 391 but 427 in particular, you do have to wonder whether TfL are purposely shooting passengers in the foot so that they remember the pain of bus travel and will be conditioned to always avoid that mode of transport in the future. *Wot bruv, start sumthink!! Okay time for bed loool
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 8, 2017 5:49:15 GMT
I am really surprised that no one has mentioned the obvious lack of stand space in Ruislip! Maybe the forecourt gets a revamp to fit in new route 278? Really love the 278 idea, and it looks like the links it will provide would be attractive to passengers. Not surprised that Long Lane hasn't had a proper route serve it at least so that's a cracking start! Make it 24/7 like others have said; sometimes the shortest but most direct routes that work out best (routes 263 & 238 are prime examples). Not much to chime in seeing as it's not mah endz bruv but would've been sensible to send route 306 to Acton High Street stand where the 70 used to stand, or give it some meat in its bones and cause some duplication over route 266 and extend the 306 to North Acton. Route 427, I mourn thee. Let's see how long TfL will take to mop their doo doo after they massacre capacity along the Uxbridge Road corridor. Route 391 was a nifty cross-Hammersmith link, now that's gone those passengers won't simply disappear! When you see heavy changes like that proposed to the 391 but 427 in particular, you do have to wonder whether TfL are purposely shooting passengers in the foot so that they remember the pain of bus travel and will be conditioned to always avoid that mode of transport in the future.
Inevitably when a new rail service is introduced there will be an element of reductions on parallel bus services and I guess it will be a case of wait and see as far as the 427 curtailment is concerned, I'm a bit dubious but I'm not sure it will be an absolute disaster.
Shame that the 140/X140 change cuts the Harrow & Wealdstone to Heathrow link.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 8, 2017 6:46:41 GMT
Looking at this consultation is like TFL took some of there ideas from the fantasy thread of this forum. I can't believe that they would butcher the 140 but kind of saw it coming. I'm surprised that they are not butchering the 105 as well. I think that the 440 should continue to Wembley to provide a link between Acton and Wembley. The 301 should continue to Acton Town Hall to provide a link between Acton Town and Fulham. To provide additional capacity to the 278 because there's no way a single decker can cope on its own between Hammersmith and Acton. The 301 proposal is Bexleyheath to Woolwich, it's a long way from there to Acton town hall .
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Jul 8, 2017 10:48:39 GMT
Well, well. Typically West London is spoiled with fun and variety whilst my east ends remain miserable 278 is a winner, the best idea of all, will be hella useful. Indeed it'll be the only non-express TfL 'big route' to serve Heathrow, but then again we got N140… And TfL hates Ruislip at night 😂 But we shall see how that goes. It'll also be interesting who gets to run it - I'd bet on Abellio myself. Meanwhile, 427 diversion will leave a huge chunk of Uxbridge Road vulnerable Not sure if 207+607 will cope on their own, though good at least these 2 routes will survive unaltered. Now I see why 218 was proposed as SD when another DD route the 306 is also in the picture. Interesting that the Fulham section will be taken over with deckers though? Always thought it was a bit quiet. 223 idea is rubbish - why break such a small, residential route. Yes Northwick Park Hospital - Harrow is overbussed, but 223 is a very bad one to tamper with. Try again Tfl. No Wembley for 440 after all. Although it's nice to have another bus route for underserved Osterley, 112 is a bad candidate due to the North Circ. It's reliability will be akin to the old 322
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 8, 2017 11:26:58 GMT
I think that it would have been better if the 218 and 306 merged into one route instead of two separate routes. You could have it running from North Acton and Fulham Sands End via what will be the 306 and 218 as a double deck route.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 8, 2017 11:40:45 GMT
A very interesting set of ideas TFL are proposing. Some positive, some negative.
The 112 extension, H32 extension, new route 278, and to an extent new route 306 are by far the best ideas in this consultation. New useful connections will be introduced with the former two while the latter will provide a new means of getting to and from Heathrow Airport, especially when factoring in the ridiculous withdrawal of the 140 from the airport.
There is a positive aspect to the 306 in that it will provide a new link between Acton and Fulham, however it's essentially an eastern replacement of the 391 and terminating short of Acton Central isn't very desirable. A positive proposal nonetheless
Then there is unnecessary ideas like cutting routes short of their useful destinations i.e. the 223 and 427. I'm certainly against cutting the 427 far back to Southall, as already mentioned the 207 will struggle without its assistance. Ealing Broadway would make more sense despite TFL being adamant about the decline of capacity along Uxbridge Road. And why break the useful Harrow link on the 223? I suppose as TFL have mentioned, the real reason is to create free space for the arguably unnecessary X140. One would ask if such little stand space is required for the X140 then what would its frequency be?
Additionally, I struggle to see the point of the 218's existence. It will be such a short shuttle-like replacement of the southern end of the 266. Although a popular section indeed, TFL could've been more ambitious with the 218 and extend it elsewhere at either end of its routing. Perhaps Putney High Street/Heath from Hammersmith alongside the busy 220 to provide it with some relief.
|
|
|
Post by ben on Jul 8, 2017 11:46:57 GMT
Maybe the trick with the 140 would have been to cut it back at the north end as well to Harrow, and only run the express to HW. With some alterations to the pavement and stand opposite Harrow Bus station, it might be possible to squeeze an extra 12m in for one further bus. Short of any work that reduces the amount of space for peds along College Road, they have a problem. Its already a great place in London to sit and watch, if you've ever wondered what a clumsy 10m box doing ballet looks like. Given the amount of development happening near the station, wheres the S106 contributions?
Ruislip is an interesting one though. The former Fanuc building next to the approach road is up for redevelopment, I think. Maybe that could provide extra width, but its hard to see what use that would be. As I commented earlier; this needs addressing. Theres a small car park right next to an overflow bus stand - perhaps this could be requisitioned for an extra couple of busses. The only other, terrifying, thought is that busses kick out and stand on the High Street at Brickwall Lane, before picking up at the station! I'm sure theres a plan somewhere, very glad its happening.
|
|
|
Post by ben on Jul 8, 2017 12:04:54 GMT
There are various hints in the technical paper that some of these short routes become candidates for further extension into areas of proposed future development, should those developments ever end up going ahead. Eg, 427 to Havelocks, or one of the routes in North Acton, iirc. So this isn't just a reactionary rejig to whats going on now, but rather a result of what is thought likely to occur and be necessary in 3 years time, with a side-order of potential to protect against something as big as this needing to happen again in another decade.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 8, 2017 12:06:56 GMT
Another one I have just noticed is that the very long extension to the 112 actually appears from the map to serve Harlequin Avenue in the Brentford trading estate, then run past Sky HQ to Tesco rather than serve Syon Lane. But something is wrong with the map as some of the routes shown are one way and there doesn't appear to be a route for reverse direction. There must be a deal with Sky as it appears to be routed through the Sky complex on their estate routes which are gated and not open to the public. The Chiswick changes to the 440 must end in a one way anti clockwise loop at Power Road (although not marked as one way on the map) as can't turn right from North Circular. I think there is already a bus stop in Oxford Road North, but can't remember what used to serve it Slightly frustrates me when basic mistakes like this are made, these days don't even need to leave office as could use google streetview. It feels like the maps have been put together by someone on work experience (or for us not so young, a YTS scheme), and then never checked. The 112 routeing at Gillette Corner is indeed puzzling. There's mention in the technical notes of working with LB Hounslow to provide a stand at Tesco (I assume the existing terminus can't handle a second route), but no mention of Sky. As you say, the map makes it look as if it will run through Sky's grounds, which is surprising. Sky already run a network of private shuttle buses for their staff, but I'd be surprised if they allow buses full of riff-raff, erm, I mean normal passengers, through their grounds. The 440 already terminates in an anti-clockwise loop at Chiswick and already serves Oxford Road North - they're not proposing any change to the terminal working. The only change in Chiswick is a short-cut to avoid the pointless detour via Fisher's Lane.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 8, 2017 12:24:57 GMT
218/266/306. Hope the 218 & 306 get awarded to same operator as the service between Hammersmith and Acton will need to be tightly controlled to ensure even running. Unfortunately that's not how buses work in London! Even if they were run by the same operator, there's no incentive to ensure overlapping routes are evenly spaced. Each route is monitored on its individual performance. From a passenger's perspective it would make sense to space buses out evenly, but for an operator all that matters is the EWT figures for each individual route. I think the 218 is a bit of a fudge anyway. They've decided they need to link Chiswick / South Acton / Park Royal with Crossrail, so the 440 has to be diverted via Acton Main Line. That leaves West Acton, where they are apparently reluctant to send DDs (despite no physical restrictions that I'm aware of), so they need a second SD route to take over from the 440, which is where the 218 comes in. Otherwise it would make more sense, as others have suggested, to combine 218 and 306 into one DD route. This would also avoid the daft situation of the 306 terminating short of a major traffic objective (Acton High Street). TfL can yell HOPPER FARE all they like, but people aren't going to want get a 207 to Acton Vale then change to a 306 - they'll all just cram onto the SD 218. I wonder if something else could cover the West Acton section instead. The 283 is pretty short - maybe it could lose the Brunel Road terminus and extend to Acton (old 70 stand) via Westway and West Acton.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 14:10:20 GMT
218/266/306. Hope the 218 & 306 get awarded to same operator as the service between Hammersmith and Acton will need to be tightly controlled to ensure even running. Unfortunately that's not how buses work in London! Even if they were run by the same operator, there's no incentive to ensure overlapping routes are evenly spaced. Each route is monitored on its individual performance. From a passenger's perspective it would make sense to space buses out evenly, but for an operator all that matters is the EWT figures for each individual route. I think the 218 is a bit of a fudge anyway. They've decided they need to link Chiswick / South Acton / Park Royal with Crossrail, so the 440 has to be diverted via Acton Main Line. That leaves West Acton, where they are apparently reluctant to send DDs (despite no physical restrictions that I'm aware of), so they need a second SD route to take over from the 440, which is where the 218 comes in. Otherwise it would make more sense, as others have suggested, to combine 218 and 306 into one DD route. This would also avoid the daft situation of the 306 terminating short of a major traffic objective (Acton High Street). TfL can yell HOPPER FARE all they like, but people aren't going to want get a 207 to Acton Vale then change to a 306 - they'll all just cram onto the SD 218. I wonder if something else could cover the West Acton section instead. The 283 is pretty short - maybe it could lose the Brunel Road terminus and extend to Acton (old 70 stand) via Westway and West Acton. I've seen tender specs which tell operators to ensure buses that run on parallel sections are spaced out ??
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 8, 2017 14:58:14 GMT
Unfortunately that's not how buses work in London! Even if they were run by the same operator, there's no incentive to ensure overlapping routes are evenly spaced. Each route is monitored on its individual performance. From a passenger's perspective it would make sense to space buses out evenly, but for an operator all that matters is the EWT figures for each individual route. I think the 218 is a bit of a fudge anyway. They've decided they need to link Chiswick / South Acton / Park Royal with Crossrail, so the 440 has to be diverted via Acton Main Line. That leaves West Acton, where they are apparently reluctant to send DDs (despite no physical restrictions that I'm aware of), so they need a second SD route to take over from the 440, which is where the 218 comes in. Otherwise it would make more sense, as others have suggested, to combine 218 and 306 into one DD route. This would also avoid the daft situation of the 306 terminating short of a major traffic objective (Acton High Street). TfL can yell HOPPER FARE all they like, but people aren't going to want get a 207 to Acton Vale then change to a 306 - they'll all just cram onto the SD 218. I wonder if something else could cover the West Acton section instead. The 283 is pretty short - maybe it could lose the Brunel Road terminus and extend to Acton (old 70 stand) via Westway and West Acton. I've seen tender specs which tell operators to ensure buses that run on parallel sections are spaced out ?? It doesn't seem to work very well in practice, the 208 and 320, the N21 and 321 at night, both Go Ahead, come to mind.
|
|